Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Says Linux Code Contributions Can't Be Rescinded (itwire.com)
An anonymous reader quotes iTWire:
Linux developers who contribute code to the kernel cannot rescind those contributions, according to the software programmer who devised the GNU General Public Licence version 2.0, the licence under which the kernel is released. Richard Stallman, the head of the Free Software Foundation and founder of the GNU Project, told iTWire in response to queries that contributors to a GPLv2-covered program could not ask for their code to be removed. "That's because they are bound by the GPLv2 themselves. I checked this with a lawyer," said Stallman, who started the free software movement in 1984.
There have been claims made by many people, including journalists, that if any kernel developers are penalised under the new code of conduct for the kernel project -- which was put in place when Linux creator Linus Torvalds decided to take a break to fix his behavioural issues -- then they would ask for their code to be removed from the kernel... Stallman asked: "But what if they could? What would they achieve by doing so? They would cause harm to the whole free software community. The anonymous person who suggests that Linux contributors do this is urging them to [use a] set of nuclear weapons in pique over an internal matter of the development team for Linux. What a shame that would be."
Slashdot reader dmoberhaus shared an article from Motherboard with more perspetives from Eric S. Raymond and LWN.net founder Jonathan Corbet, which also traces the origins of the suggestion. "[A]n anonymous user going by the handle 'unconditionedwitness' called for developers who end up getting banned through the Code of Conduct in the future to rescind their contributions to the Linux kernel 'in a bloc' to produce the greatest effect.
"It is worth noting that the email address for unconditionedwitness pointed to redchan.it, a now defunct message board on 8chan that mostly hosted misogynistic memes, many of which were associated with gamergate."
There have been claims made by many people, including journalists, that if any kernel developers are penalised under the new code of conduct for the kernel project -- which was put in place when Linux creator Linus Torvalds decided to take a break to fix his behavioural issues -- then they would ask for their code to be removed from the kernel... Stallman asked: "But what if they could? What would they achieve by doing so? They would cause harm to the whole free software community. The anonymous person who suggests that Linux contributors do this is urging them to [use a] set of nuclear weapons in pique over an internal matter of the development team for Linux. What a shame that would be."
Slashdot reader dmoberhaus shared an article from Motherboard with more perspetives from Eric S. Raymond and LWN.net founder Jonathan Corbet, which also traces the origins of the suggestion. "[A]n anonymous user going by the handle 'unconditionedwitness' called for developers who end up getting banned through the Code of Conduct in the future to rescind their contributions to the Linux kernel 'in a bloc' to produce the greatest effect.
"It is worth noting that the email address for unconditionedwitness pointed to redchan.it, a now defunct message board on 8chan that mostly hosted misogynistic memes, many of which were associated with gamergate."
Sure, but it would be the rights holders asking for it to be rescinded, not the contributor. The contributor can of course point out a rights violation to the team, after that it's up to them to either seek a license from the rights holders or replace the offending code.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase. In one email, he complains that because of people like me, the law doesn't allow him to marry very young girls. I mean single-digit young. He claims to be an attorney but nothing he has written makes me think he is. He was joined in this by some folks known from gamergate. They aren't legitimate kernel developers.
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
Bruce Perens.
I'm offended by Lennart Poettering and believe his systemd code should be rescinded immediately in violation of fundamental philosophical reasons.
They may not be able (and neither want) to rescind their contributions, but some people might decide to walk away from the project. Depending on the person this could be a setback for any project, even one as big as the Linux kernel. The fact that Linus himself is "taking a break to fix his behavioural issues" could be a sign of the things to come.
Personally, I don't think foul language is required to tell someone that their contribution is not up to par. Be respectful of others, but also be honest to them. At the same time I also don't believe people need to think of my "feelings" when telling me that I did something stupid. I'd take a good bollocking any day over that wishy-washy we-are-all-equal-unicorns nonsense.
Yes. As I was quoted in the Motherboard article referenced above, you can decline any further participation in kernel development. However, the noisy folks about this issue do not appear to actually participate in kernel development.
Any actual kernel developers who leave will be replaced by one of the other 4000 active this year. If they have been vociferous about their rights to entirely unlimited conduct (and all of the side-issues that seem to come with that) it may be that the folks on the kernel mailing list are already tired of them and won't miss them.
Bruce Perens.
Any team that relies on a gold laying goose is doomed when that goose inevitably gets cooked. And as bad as building your team around an individual indispensable goose is, it's even worse to build it around a flock of indispensable geese.
The truth is that a gold egg laying goose may be valuable, but it's not indispensable; its value is finite and it is replaceable. Eventually the world is going to get along fine without every single one of us.
Really I think a lot of what's going on here is the death of a fantasy: the one where you're so technically awesome that you get a pass on acting like an asshole. That's why people are so irrationally upset at Linus deciding he should probably be a bit less of a dick. That isn't just moving the goalposts for some people, it's taking them off the field.
As for the Code of Conduct, it's basic workplace propriety. That doesn't restrict your worldview, but it does mean you keep it on your own time.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
If you've got to swing your dick out and use gamergate as a fear bludgeon, you've already lost that element. I'll remind you that That it was the people that were screeching gamergate was evil, who were the ones engaging in shitty behavior. Everything from doxing, to rape, to sexual harassment, to calling in bomb threats.
Projection is one hell of a fucking drug.
Om, nomnomnom...
The CoC has nothing ot do with if you can rescind your code or not. You can't. If you submitted it as GPLv2 then it is always available to be included in GPLv2 code. You can change the license, but that only applies to versions going forward. The license is all that matters.
The fellow spreading this story that you can "rescind" code is more commonly known as MikeeUSA, a misogynist and general nutcase.
Eric Raymond also weighed in, and said: "First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.'s opt-out of the "moral rights" clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case."
Now we have Stallman weighing in and saying the opposite, with "I checked this with a lawyer". But we could also ask what prompted Stallman to add the "irrevocable" clause in GPL version 3.
In neither case do we have an actual link to case law. In other words, this is still an undecided issue. On the surface, Raymond's argument is stronger, but it needs a citation.
I was kind of curious so I searched "MikeeUSA" and one of the top hits is an Encyclopedia Dramatic page for him. That's pretty much a guarantee that he's some kind of complete nutter just in itself. Apparently he got thrown off of Sourceforge years and years ago for being a dick and has made posts online in support of men being able to marry or have sex with pre-pubescent girls.
Whether he's serious about any of that or just a troll trying to be utterly outrageous doesn't really matter. When someone has a reputation for spouting all kinds of inane or idiotic crap, it's hardly an ad hominem attack to point out that the person behind some new message has a history of spouting all kinds of crap. If someone told you that a car dealer you were looking to buy from had an extensive history of cheating customers and screwing them over and there's plenty of documented proof of it, you don't accuse the person of making ad hominem attacks against the car dealer. You thank that person for pointing that out and saving you from getting suckered.
Whether the CoC drives people away or not is irrelevant to the person making this push being deranged in some manner.
Seriously, Bruce? If you read the CoC, it has nothing to say about anything technical at all. Specifically, it never says that good code will be accepted regardless of who submits it, which is the only CoC any software project should ever have IMO.
The CoC literally has infinitely more content about genitals and what you chose to do with them than it has about making good software, since it has some text about the former and none about the latter.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Nice ad hom. Now try actually contributing to the conversation.
It's actually pretty relevant. One critical question is whether the CoC is an issue for a significant portion of developers or just a few misogynist's on the Internet.
From the article:
Furthermore, Corbet argued, “no actual developer has gone anywhere near this—all of the people talking about rescission on the list are from outside the kernel development community.”
ESR is controversial though he's made legitimate contributions to the Linux eco-system, but MikeeUSA and unconditionedwitness just seem to be a couple really sketchy individuals. Not exactly indications that droves regular devs are bothered by the CoC.
I'll start.
Whether developers can or cannot legally rescind their code the new CoC is absolutely guaranteed to drive away people who believe their contributions are more important than their genitals. For that reason alone this is not going to turn out well.
I'll finish.
Ignoring your bizarre "genitals" comment the whole rescinding code debate is irrelevant.
A: The CoC has me so outraged I'm rescinding my code from the Kernel!
B: Find, oh, BTW, I'm applying a patch based on A's GPL'd code from yesterday.
I don't see how you could possibly pull code that was legally contributed right out of the ecosystem. I mean that was the entire point of the GPL in the first place other people can use the code as long as it stays GPL'd.
If this was allowed then what's to stop Linus from saying "I just changed my mind, my code is no longer GPL'd, anyone running Linux needs to pay me $1,000,000!!"
It's just not how the GPL works.
I stole this Sig
Funny, placing code quality above irrelevant incidental features like genitals is exactly the point of anti-bigotry initiatives like the new code of conduct. It's patently obvious that detractors either prefer the maintenance of their social position over code quality or simply believe that women and others protected by the code of conduct are incapable of writing quality code. It's transparent and moronic.
Read as a whole, that's entirely the opposite of what the front page of the CC says... It spends one sentence saying "technical contributions" (read: "code quality") should not be an excuse for "bad behavior" (which is arguable), but most of the rest of the paragraphs talking about "irrelevant incidental features like genitals" and how the owners of such are the hardest hit.
Much of the objection to the new CoC as opposed to the previous one is that the previous one was pretty clearly intended to address behavior, and not the subject. If someone is being too much of an ass, the problem is that he's being an ass, not that he was an ass to person XYZ in particular. This is primarily a "watch out for these special people" document and not a "don't be an ass" document.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
The relevant case doesn't come from before the founding of OSI, so Eric appears to be confused here about what research he performed when. The relevant case is Jacobsen v. Katzer, and the parts about reputation come from my own expert testimony. They don't provide a method to terminate a license for a reputational loss.
Bruce Perens.
There is no question that Hans Reiser wrote good code, but he was also extremely abusive to the kernel team, and thus made it very difficult for anyone to work with him. There will be similar reasons that brilliant people will be constitutionally unable to participate in group development, and their code will be excluded because they will be excluded.
I am so glad I did not go to work for Hans. I spoke with Nina on the phone once. This is all so weird.
Bruce Perens.
Yeah, I don't think anyone objects to people treating each other well, and as equals in the sense that all have the same rights/laws and so on. The issue comes up when these warriors then say your code shouldn't be used because of something unrelated in your life and you are in their eyes, a bad person.
Or, IMO, just as bad - I MUST accept your stuff, no matter how bad, because your particular "identity politic bullshit self-description" is otherwise under represented - essentially self-defined repression with self-prescribed and demanded affirmative action required.
And while the current CoC looks reasonable, we have plenty of evidence that it devolves into what I describe once you let that camel's nose under the tent. Everyone has always been free to NOT leverage the work of those they dislike. When Linus rants, I frankly find it entertaining and for a good cause - an example is having code submitted that won't even compile. Is he supposed to apologize for the submitter's incompetence or lack of caring about what's actually important?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
This is a kernel mailing list. Nobody wants to hear your personal opinions. Why would such things even need to be discussed?
Very true, but begs the question why isn't the code of conduct explicitly limited to the mailing list, but instead explicitly extends into meatspace and is deliberately vague
+This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
+when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
+representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
+address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
+representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
+further defined and clarified by project maintainers.
Particularly loved the last line. might as well write it as " I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further. "
Not sure I even want to know what this means.
If I were to wager a guess I'd guess the tendency of some people to think everything that happens to them is a form of discrimination based on whatever minority group they happen to be in. We've seen Linus go ballistic on people who presumably are also white heterosexual males, it's not okay but it's a pretty good evidence he's "just" the occasional asshole not a bigot. But if he now attacks the wrong person I expect there to be all kinds of hell and CoC-waving about how Linus is creating a "hostile environment" for women or some sort of LBGT+ group. Some even seem to go around like agent provocateurs, stirring shit up trying to trigger name calling and then pouncing on them as bigots and acting like their taunting is really an act of community service exposing hidden discrimination. And if they don't get the response they want, escalate as this proves how extensive the hidden discrimination is until there's terminations and public boycotts. I think Linus has badly miscalculated in adopting the CoC, it's like an open invitation to all the trolls who are going to try to tear him down and replace him.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There's so much going on here that it's hard to untangle everything. The CoC as written is a blackmailer's charter, but in the real world personalities do matter and it's possible for a person to be excluded simply because "the group" can't work with them.
In a public context like the Linux development team and mailing list I think the reality is that it's hard to hide genuine unfairness and the GPL means that if enough of a mass believe that something has genuinely gone wrong they can take the ball away and play their own game and release their own kernel (trademarking is an issue with that theory, of course). IMO, that's more than enough to "keep it honest".
The new CoC is so broad with its definition of what is abusive that it's suddenly turned normal conversation on the mailing list into a minefield:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
"'Crazy' is a derogatory comment; you can't refuse my code on that basis."
"Jesus! Right. I'm sorry."
"I'm an atheist and object to your proselytizing at me."
etc.
It's a classic example of more detailed text making it harder to be reasonable instead of easier, or if you prefer making it easier to be unreasonable. For the person who wants to be disruptive, it gives far too many things they can point to while at the same time making it harder for the rest of the group to exclude that disruptive person because "I'm just enforcing the CoC you all agreed to". And none of this is happening in isolation. The damage has been done elsewhere.
As I said on a previous thread, the problems of society are real and need fixed, but they need to be fixed lower down the stack. Once you start writing software that goes into aircraft or cars, meritocracy is the only option.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That kind of claim has occurred before. The largest scale of claims were those by SCO, which claimed that core code to Linux was copied from SysV UNIX, for which they owned the copyrights. There were enormous difficulties with their claimss, which were well analyzed at https://www.groklaw.net./ It turned out that they refused to detail which code was copied, samples that they claimed were copied were from BSD UNIX and copied with permission, and SCO had been contributing to the UNIX kernel themselves. It also turned out they didn't own SysV UNIX, that was still owned by Novell, and SCO had not been paying their licensing fees.
If SCO had copied in any of the SysV code, or if anyone else had, the Linux developers would have had to negotiate that with Novell, the owners of SysV UNIX. Since Novell was suing SCO for their fraudulent lawsuits against the Linux community, I think there would have been no licensing difficulty for modest contributions.
400 years of legal history, since the first copyright act in 1710, disagree with you. At a minimum, courts can and will force you to cease sharing that intellectual property.
Nobody on the kernel team is going to force acceptance of bad code on the basis of code-of-conduct issues. If you call someone "crazy" and they rightly point out that you can, and should, be more colegial, that is not going to result in code acceptance.
Bruce Perens.
The CoC is not "don't be a dick", which would be a great CoC.
It's "don't insult people with a list of protected characteristics". And it's not limited to "on a mailing list": if history is any guide, it will be used to purge anyone whose public politics are unacceptable.
Perfect polite with everyone in technical interactions, but once gave fincancial support to oppose gay marriage? Out with you!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
No, this is how people talk when they've seen Occupy Wallstreet.
Occupy Wall Street was a noble cause which fought against economic corruption and whose success depended on the working and experienced middle and lower class majorities identifying with it. It initially sought to bring before the court the names responsible for the Economic Crisis, and to resolve the problem of top 1% wealth being squandered on liquid wealth picking up dust as opposed to being put to productive use for society as non-liquid while appeasing all sides. It was picking up pace and power initially.
Then something changed. SJWs appeared and media diverted all spotlight focus on young inexperienced retarded people talking stupid shit on camera and SJW snowflakes; so the normal experienced adults who the majority population identifies with were overflooded and overshadowed by meme-identities, young uneducated idiots, and plain idiots.
The "progressive stack" was introduced, whereby the retarded and stupid people got speech bumps over educated people, and snowflakes and meme-identities had speech bumps over the people who most of society would identify with.
The source of the problem was diverted from specific names of the Economy Crashers and dealing with the liquid problem so that all parties are satisfied, to blaming everything on intangible concepts and a whole gender and race.
Its success depended on the majority identifying with it, while its failure was met by the majority being disassociated from it due SJW retardation and "anti-normative" politics while the media played those minority memes as the driving force which put the final nails in the coffin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4
There were assholes one both sides of gamergate, to be sure. The odd thing was the fringe elements of gaming seemed to be similarly crazy to the mainstream gaming press. But then the gaming press was always a weird fringe of "the press" so I guess that makes sense.
Either way, gamers won, and games remain mostly focused on gameplay (or monetization, but that's a different issue), not pushing a political agenda.
Genre film, and especially comic books, chose a different path, and seem intent on immolating themselves in the fires of political preaching, but gaming has largely escaped that fate. (Computer gaming, anyhow.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
What’s being discussed again? Kicking out and ostracizing someone and keeping their contributed code, against their wishes? You guys really think that's a moral or ethical thing to do?
If you don’t want someone included, you don't get to benefit from their contributions either. If you want to benefit from their contributions, then get off your high horse and exercise some tolerance.
The right to ostracize someone and keep and continue benefitting from their volunteered work is not something an ethical person would fight for.
I hope Stallman's transformation from idealist to corporate lawyer is reversible.
Would be nice if the Linux developers wouldn't let themselves be dragged into the CoC trap in the first place. If you are worried about developers hurting the open software community by rescinding code, you'd better consider the damage that SJW crap is bringing to sociëty as a whole. Not just Linux, or open source, but to civilization. Common sense has been replaced by eternal butthurts. Yes, Linus has some problems. Yes, he should get some anger control therapy. But there is zero excuse for turning the community over to groups that demand inclusion for the the sake of inclusion, rather than for the sake of progressing the Linux kernel.
There isn't a single line of code that is better because it was written by a gay person, by a woman, by a transgender, by a religious minority or by a 'person of color'. Code is good or code is bad. That's it. If butthurt snowflakes want to be included for their contributions, they'd better start writing Code of Linux, not Code of Conduct crap.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Unlikely. The argument that the GPL2's no-recission clause lacks the word "recission" is laughably weak. The incels will be laughed out of court, and no one will miss them when they are gone.
And there is a way for them to escape this. All they have to do is grow up. But they won't, not because they can't, but because they just don't want to. That's all it is. And that is why they are being replaced.
There is no question that Hans Reiser wrote good code, but he was also extremely abusive to the kernel team, and thus made it very difficult for anyone to work with him.
Well, given that he ended up murdering someone - perhaps the kernel team should consider themselves relatively lucky.
#DeleteChrome
I think you're missing the point. Of course copyright requires the permission of the copyright holder (who is not necessarily the author, much copyrighted work is work-for-hire). But having granted a license, can you just say "I changed my mind?" Lots of people would like to get out of contracts that way, but the law doesn't let them.
Bruce Perens.
If any court allowed you to retroactively change a license or contract it would destabilize everything. What if I built a product on your GPL code and you decided to retroactively change the license? You can change it going forward, but not backward. I don't know any court that would allow changing licenses retroactively to happen. A person could definitely walk away though, or even change the license of their code in subsequent releases. This has happened many times.
Replaced with what? Talentless virtue signalers and diversity hires? Enough is enough. Nobody has a natural right to force themselves and their views on any community without expecting blowback for it. No outsider has a natural right to 'replace' anybody either.
Here's the lovely thing about all this: no, they won't be laughed out of court. It's an interesting argument either way, and one must accept that Stallman is an open source fanatic and isn't going to willingly put forth a position that could harm that movement. I like the guy, but he is not objective here.
The best part though is that computers don't give a rat's ass about your feelings. The talentless gender fluid attention whores who started all this are utterly incapable of maintaining a world class operating system, and they're going to learn that when they try. Also, these people you seem to think have no right to exist unless they choose to conform to your expectations are going to go get together elsewhere and produce something superior and they are going to make sure that the likes of you can never get anywhere near it.
Also, had it occurred to anyone that pissing off a bunch of people who by your own admission are superior to you in technology (or ending meritocracy wouldn't be a stated goal of all this) is probably a really bad idea? The best thing that could come of that is they will rip the code the diversity contributors submit to absolute shreds. Again, neither technology nor most thinking people give a damn about your feelings.
The utterly toxic and destructive people behind the CoC already have their fist victory: FUD.
Second one will be when they get a high-profile kernel developer excluded, they are already gunning for some.
I predict that in the future any successful FOSS project will need a CoC that states "There never will be a CoC." right from the start.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I don't think an individual (or group) can actually pull the license for GPL software that is out in the wild. They can change the license for the software in their procession and release it under different terms but the original is still GPL.
So foo v1 is GPL and later the author releases foo v2 under the MINE license, v1 is still GPL and can be forked. The actual name may be protected under trademark law so the v2 of the GPL fork may have to be bar v2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The new CoC is so broad with its definition of what is abusive that it's suddenly turned normal conversation on the mailing list into a minefield:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
"'Crazy' is a derogatory comment; you can't refuse my code on that basis."
"Jesus! Right. I'm sorry."
"I'm an atheist and object to your proselytizing at me."
etc.
It's a classic example of more detailed text making it harder to be reasonable instead of easier, or if you prefer making it easier to be unreasonable. For the person who wants to be disruptive, it gives far too many things they can point to while at the same time making it harder for the rest of the group to exclude that disruptive person because "I'm just enforcing the CoC you all agreed to"
That strikes me as a bit of a contrived example. Some people will nitpick, and I'm sure someone will complain about "crazy" once in a while but it will hardly be a regular thing.
I also think it's a bad idea when reviewing code to use phrases like:
"It's crazy to use a signed int for measuring the size of a buffer here."
Because you're saying it's bad but you're not saying WHY it's bad.
"It's definitely possible for the buffer to exceed 2^15, this should be an unsigned int"
or
"We use unsigned ints for buffer size everywhere else, using signed here would just be confusing"
Sure it's just an example you made up, but it's a real issue. When you reject something you need to give a reason, if you say it's because it's "crazy" or "stupid" you're not really explaining anything but it feels like a justification and people tend to leave it at that. If you're not allowed to be obnoxious you suddenly realize you need to justify your position, sometimes this educates the contributor, but some times you realize you can't justify your position because you were wrong.
Plus, once you call something stupid or crazy it's hard to back down if you made a mistake.
As I said on a previous thread, the problems of society are real and need fixed, but they need to be fixed lower down the stack. Once you start writing software that goes into aircraft or cars, meritocracy is the only option.
But that's it, when you're forced to be respectful you suddenly have to judge on the work rather than acquiescing to whomever is pushing their point more aggressively. It helps create a meritocracy.
I stole this Sig
The only ones signalling are the nutters who object to standards, who believe they can decide who can contribute, who think that gender matters more than the code.
Their signals are not POSIX compliant. I see no value in them. If they cannot survive on quality, they don't offer anything of value.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
of the GPL. Would you be posting this same post if the person in question wanted their code back because they discovered it's worth millions? Or if they didn't like the political party Linus Torvald's belongs to?
It's the same thing. The point of the GPL is software freedom. Regardless of the circumstance the software remains free. That freedom _is_ his ethics. Go spend some time reading the many, many things he's written on this topic and you'll find him completely consistent in this regard.
So yeah, no take backs. Whatever the reason.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Legal systems around the world have dealt with this issue for hundreds of years. You can't hope to enumerate all possible unwanted behaviours and provide a comprehensive enough definition to prevent people from lawyering they way out.
So instead of set out the general principals and the terms in which courts should evaluate behaviour. That mostly works, and it's the best system anyone has come up with.
The Linux maintainers don't have a judicial system so they are going to have to do their best. I can't see any better solution - dealing with issues as they arise is the only reasonable way.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You know what I'm going to ask.
I ask it every single time, and never get an answer.
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but here goes.
Can you cite one single example, just one, of this actually happening?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Established law includes case law. Bruce's testimony is relevant to case law. Wikipedia is not.
If you want a counter argument with teeth, you need a PJ who can grok law.
A wiki... Not so much.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In what science-fictional alternate universe would I have not read the GPL? Really.
When you parse licenses, you have to be conscious that they do not exist in a vacuum. They rest upon the entire body of law and precedent going back, in the US case, to British Common Law (yes, courts still cite it here). An important part of all of this law is that when you make a grant, it remains a grant unless the terms of the law or the grant itself allow you to take it back. And generally, they do not. For one thing, the entire structure of business based upon contracts would fail if you had the right to rescind them any time you changed your mind.
So, it does not matter if GPL2 doesn't say it does not terminate, it does matter that the text does not provide any means other than violation of the terms for it to terminate.
Bruce Perens.
Insightful? Really mods? While you are throwing insults you MIGHT want to read the festering SJW shitshow they are trying to shove on Linux, which is racist and sexist as fuck with an explicit stated goal to get rid of meritoracy and instead base contributions on how high you rank in the Oppression Olympics...yeah because developing extremely complex kernel code should be based on what your skin color is and whether you are a hufflepuff (no shit the one heading this bunch of whack-a-doodles calls herself a hufflepuff) not whether you can ACTUALLY WRITE GOOD FUCKING CODE.
And ya wonder why more and more are looking at the SJW movement and the regressives and going "Yeah can't stand the right....but at least they aren't batshit like these nutters, think I'll switch". I mean for fucks sake who gives a single flying flipping fuck (other than regressives because ALL they care about is being racist sexist fucks) what color someone writing KERNEL CODE is? Torvalds has certainly never given a shit, he treats ALL who act like morons as moronic no matter what color they were and only gave a shit about the quality of the code, not about whether they are a "protected class" they needed to be coddled and infantilized (cuz never forget the regressives are all about soft bigotry of low expectations) because that is the nice thing about meritoracy, cream rises to the top, shit gets flushed like it should.
Be be sure to screaming "INCELS" and "Muh FEE FEES!" at the top of your lungs and call everyone an "IST!", because I'm sure designing an OS based on promoting skin color and how many adjectives one can add to their choices in who to fuck will make a really quality product...yeah and my mama was a Kaiju and my name is Godzilla.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Not the original poster, but in the examples of people just purposefully trying to make mountains out of molehills and stir crap to the detriment of all in an open source project realm, would this suffice?
There are those out there with too much time on their hands that just want to either seize power through questionable means or watch the world burn. Using moral panic and fear of a mob as means to their ends.
There are common trends in the way these things start/are enforced, and while it may not be of great concern now patterns have been established towards the behavior. In the worst of cases the mob can refuse to stop even in the face of evidence appearing that no wrong doing was ever done.
It may be an overreaction, but it the fear seems to be that this will be the wedge used to allow those willing to use purposeful over-sensitivity and bad faith to accrue power.
Mob mentalities should be feared, but we shouldn't succumb to them or to actors acting in bad faith for their own gain.
The CoC is a poison pill.
Let me tell you the story of the Pirate Party in Germany. I was a member, so this is inside perspective:
Once upon a time, a german Pirate Party was founded, and got rapid interest. It growed quickly and the timing was right. New surveilance laws brought public interest to the party topics, and it had some success at elections as well as a media interest far larger than its single-digit election percents would justify.
But it was growing in both success and popularity. Some hopeful observers started to give it chances to enter the german parliament (which has a 5% treshold). It did successfully enter multiple local and state parliaments.
Then the trolls took over. Suddenly all these topics of equal rights and protection of minorities and proper language and genderism and what else you have was on the agenda, and in a tense internal vote even entered the party platform. The original concept of the Pirate Party - digital civil rights - became a side note. A lot of weirdos made career inside the party, and the tools they used to edge out the original pirates was the same as the CoC. Wordings, language, conduct. It was the end of the Pirate Party. Nobody is talking about them anymore, and the last national election got them 0.4 % of the votes, which is their worst result ever and an 82% loss compared to the previous election.
These things have become tools for people with completely different agendas. None of the Pirate Party trolls had any history of making anyones life better. There are certainly causes worth fighting for and there are certainly cases where improper language, prejudices and such are harming people and there are people who stand up for them and help those affected. But the vast majority of social justice warriors have no such history. They have nothing under their belt where their actions actually made the life of an actual person better. Theirs war is in the abstract. "women are harmed by ..." - which woman exactly, when exactly and how exactly?
---
We nerds are susceptible to this kind of arguing because we can think abstractly and don't think it unusual. That is why social justice warriors thrive in the academic environment. In a farming village, nobody would take them seriously, because people are interested in actual milk from actual cows, not milking theory.
Look for actual harm to actual people, or ask for references of where these warriors managed actual benefits to actual people with their demands and actions. If they cannot provide evidence of either, disregard their bullshit and call it for what it is.
It still pains when I think of the takeover and destruction of the German Pirate Party. Please don't let the same happen to the Linux kernel. Keep out the trolls.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org